The beginnings of colonial American history are inescapably
linked to the life and legacy of Christopher Columbus. Even though we now accept the fact that
Columbus was far from the first person to “discover” or explore the New World,
the history of Christopher Columbus is foundational to all that would follow in
his wake. Columbus’ influence is so wide
reaching that his name has been used when naming numerous cities, capitals and
even a South American nation. Columbus
even has a holiday named for him by a nation whose lands he never walked.
Despite his
important role in New World colonization, Columbus’ legacy is complicated to
say the least. Was he a hero? A
villain? Or something else
entirely? Analyzing how historians, over
time, have viewed the history of Christopher Columbus illustrates the
complexity of this important historical figure.
For example, we can easily see stark differences in how Columbus was
esteemed by historians when we juxtapose the historical records of his 400th
anniversary (1892) with those of his 500th anniversary (1992), and
all the years in between. For historians
of the late 19th century, Christopher Columbus was a figure of
admiration, whose voyage was blessed by God himself, while historians of the
later 20th century placed the bulk of the blame for Native American genocide
squarely on his shoulders, thereby completely shifting the paradigm of Columbus
historiography from one extreme to the other.
In other words, historians of both the 19th and 20th
centuries tended to tell only half of the story when it came to Columbus. He was either a hero or a villain, with
little wiggle room in between. Such a
black and white treatment of Columbus diluted the true history of this
incredibly important figure and reflects more the popular sentiments of the
days in which these histories were produced. As Historian and Columbus
Biographer De Lamar Jensen put it:
Most people living one hundred years ago and
celebrating the quadricentenary of Columbus’s first voyage honored Columbus as
a hero who almost singlehandedly battered down the walls of medieval ignorance…others,
however, have become overenthusiastic, even slanderous, in their attempts to
demythologize Columbus. Their approach often serves to bolster a political
cause rather than promote a search for truth.[1]
Understanding how and why the legacy
of Christopher Columbus has experienced such a shift in only a short one-hundred-year
period requires us to recognize the unique cultural and social factors that
helped to shape the perspectives of both 19th and 20th
century historians. For both students
and teachers living in the 19th century, the American school
experience was one in which the promotion of great men of virtue was of
paramount importance. As modern
historians Carla and Phillip Williams point out, “the nineteenth century saw
the development of textbooks in United States history that consciously aimed to
create virtuous and patriotic citizens.”[2] The heavy emphasis on the narrative of
America’s providential founding and destiny, coupled with the eventual rise of
nationalism, created an atmosphere in which histories featuring great men,
accomplishing great feats, all for the sake of great nations, found their way
to the Avant Garde of the collective American historical experience.
The origin of these pro-Columbus
narratives of the late 1800s have their genesis with the work of Washington
Erving, who in 1828 wrote a four-volume work entitled, A History of the Life
and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Erving’s
book, which became an instant hit in its day, was peppered with a plethora of twisted
facts and downright fiction, making the work unreliable from a purely
historical perspective, but deeply moving from a nationalistic sense. Erving’s version of Columbus was very much in
line with the “great man” concept of that century. Erving called Columbus “an ardent and comprehensive
genius,” endowed with an “enthusiastic nature” who “conferred with sovereigns
almost with a feeling of equity.”[3] In addition, Erving consistently inflates Columbus’
importance as a truly great man by perpetuating numerous myths, including the
now debunked folklore tale of Columbus being motivated to prove that the world
was not flat.[4]
For the next
100 years, Erving’s record of Columbus would dominate society as the most popular
biography on the great explorer.[5] As a result, the gluttony of myths and
distorted historical accounts filtered down into subsequent histories. By the time Columbus’ quadricentennial had
arrived, the majority of historians and causal readers of history had accepted
the narrative established by Erving.
Columbus was a man of moral character to be emulated and revered, and
those who endeavored to produce historical material on the explorer would be
wise not to contradict that status quo. Consequently,
the histories of Columbus that emerged in the late 19th century
followed the established narrative.
One example of Erving’s influence on
Columbus history of the late 19th century can be found in the work
of William Eleroy Curtis. In his
two-part biography of Columbus, Curtis refers to the explorer as, “a man of
honest parentage and sober life” who was “prudent, showing a great genius, and
he was gracious in manner.”[6] Throughout the book (which focuses primarily
on the works of art created to memorialize Columbus), Curtis heaps praise upon
the Italian explorer who is more than deserving of all the “heroic statues” and
“dignified effigies” dedicated throughout the world to his memory.[7]
In addition to Curtis’ account are several
collections of Columbus’ own writings, gathered and published by historians for
his quadricentennial celebration, each containing an introduction of preface by
their respective historian/author. Many
of these introductions present the same complimentary treatment of Columbus, as
a man worthy of admiration. In Writings
of Christopher Columbus (1892), historian Paul Leicester Ford describes
Columbus as, “a man of bold disposition, good mind and education, with
practical sea and cartographic experience, and withal an enthusiast, was ready
to act at the time that Europe’s interests in the east forced her at last to
turn westward.”[8] In The Authentic Letters of Christopher
Columbus (1895), historian William Eleroy Curtis recognizes Columbus as a
man of “deep religious spirit” whose piety was so great that even kings and
queens sought his wisdom because of his devotion to God.[9]
And finally, in The Life of Christopher Columbus (18..), author Arthur
George Knight venerated Columbus when he wrote, “As long as Englishmen are
sailors and merchants, and love enterprise and greatness of courage, they ought
to hold in veneration the memory of Christopher Columbus...when he departed
this life he was ripe for canonization, and he even miraculously aids those who
commend themselves to his powerful intersession.”[10] The general thesis from these – and many
other – records of Columbus, produced during the conclusion of the 19th
century was clear: Christopher Columbus was a great man, worthy of praise, whose
deeds were sanctioned by divinity itself.
In addition to the many primary
source publications produced at this time, and their prefaced remarks from
historians of the time, were numerous biographies and histories of Columbus,
which also fell in line with the conventional historiographical approach of the
19th century. Among this vast
collection is the biography by John Stephens Cabot Abbott in which Columbus is
portrayed as a larger than life figure, sent from heaven above to fulfill the
divine mandate of discovering the New World.
“Columbus was, by nature, a kind-hearted man…he completely won the
hearts of the natives by the gift of a few glittering beads or tinkling hawk’s
bells.”[11] Abbott concluded his biography of Columbus by
reminding the reader that Columbus’ life “was one of the most joyous we have on
record. That he had his faults all will
admit. That those blemishes of character
were redeemed by many and exalted virtues, few candid minds will deny.”[12]
In a world marked by new emerging
technologies, newfound economic opportunities and a surging spirit of
nationalism, Christopher Columbus was the perfect candidate for historical canonization. As an
explorer who braved unknown frontiers, discovered unknown lands and endeavored
to strike it rich, Columbus’ story resonated on a deep and intimate level. 19th century American society had
already venerated innovators and tycoons like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie
and John D. Rockefeller for their contributions which had brought to pass a new
world. Comparing such achievements to
those accomplished 400 years earlier by a foreign explorer with a dream was not
a tough connection to make. As such, Christopher
Columbus became, in the eyes of the average American, a rags to riches success
story to be emulated and admired.
Reevaluation and Extreme Objectivity
While the bulk of late 19th
century Christopher Columbus history was clearly over-complimentary and seeking
to promote the explorer as a great and noble man to be revered, the atmosphere
of admiration was not without its storms.
As the years marched on into the 20th century, historians
began the very slow process of reassessing who Christopher Columbus really was,
and how his history should be presented.
In her 1915 biography, author and historian Mildred Stapley took earlier
Columbus biographers to task when she wrote:
Critical research into the life of Christopher
Columbus was unknown until about thirty years ago. It was then, for the first time, that authors
began to ransack the archives of Spain and Genoa for material, instead of
merely repeating the long-accepted story whose outline had been ingeniously
sketched by the navigator himself and as ingenously filled in by his son
Fernando. The many inaccuracies of his
story had not escaped writers as shrewd as Washington Irving and Alexander
Humboldt; but they, instead of subjecting disturbing misstatements to critical
examination, bent all their talents to inventing plausible explanations of every
discrepancy.[13]
For
researchers like Stapley, the traditional narrative of Columbus as a great man
wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it wasn’t entirely accurate either. Historians of the generation that followed
Columbus’ quadricentennial understood that they had to “emancipate [themselves]
from the thralldom of that uncritical admiration in which it has been
fashionable to hold the Discoverer, ever since Washington Irving threw over the
subject the romantic and bewitching charm of his literary skill.”[14] Instead of relying on the interpretations of
their parent’s generation, those who “inherited” the job of understanding
Columbus’ legacy moving forward felt a greater responsibility to let the
historical record speak for itself.
Instead of needing Columbus to be a great man, justified by history,
these new historians determined to let the historical record reflect “a more
correct judgement be formed” on the true character of this all-important
explorer.[15]
This shift of
agenda can be summed up in many regards as the moment when historians were able
to emancipate themselves from the cultural desire to make Christopher Columbus
fit with a particular social agenda. As resources
became more available, these new histories “were willing to temper their
admiration of Columbus,” thereby opening up themselves to new potential
conclusions.[16] These
new conclusions may have flown counter to conventional narratives, but they
also allowed a new historiography to bloom.
Arguably the
most influential work of new Columbus historiography produced in the wake of
his quadricentennial era was a biography by Justin Winsor entitled, Christopher
Columbus and How He Received and Imparted the Spirit of Discovery (1892). In his book, Windsor not only provides detailed
scrutiny of many key Columbus biographies dating all the way to the 16th
century, but he also emerges as one of the first historians to put Columbus in
his appropriate context. Windsor wrote,
“The man who becomes the conspicuous developer of any great world movement is
usually the embodiment of the ripened aspirations of his time. Such was Columbus.”[17] Windsor’s work had not abruptly overturned
the status quo view of Columbus as a great man, but it did point out the many
inconsistencies in his story. Windsor’s
work did not obscure the facts. His
biography of Columbus was even-handed in its treatment of the historical
record.
For those
who still favored the traditional view of Columbus, Windsor’s work proved
problematic. The cognitive dissonance
caused by Windsor’s recognition of historical blemishes in Columbus’ story
caused detractors to go on the attack. As
modern-day historians Carla and William Phillips point out:
A large segment of the American public was unwilling
to admit the slightest flaw in its heroes, and the reaction against Winsor and
other less scholarly critics was swift and long-lasting. Several books
vigorously defended Columbus against Winsor specifically. Others simply ignored the critics and wrote
modem glosses on Irving, or tried their hand at epic poetry and drama based on
a laudatory view of the Admiral.[18]
Despite the misgivings of some, Windsor’s book had opened the
floodgates. A new standard, relying upon
primary evidence, had inspired others to follow in Winsor’s footsteps.[19]
This new
trend in scholarship lasted for several decades, extending even into what
historians now call the progressive era.
During this time, new works, akin to that of Winsor’s biography, were
produced, many of which made attempts to reconcile some of the unsavory aspects
of Columbus’ history. The progressive
era had made it easier to avoid portraying Columbus as a noble man of virtue,
since this era’s historians proved to be more interested in the social and
economic aspects of the past as opposed to creating narratives of great men and
great causes.[20] As a result, very little change in the
historiography of Christopher Columbus was created in the early decades of the
20th century.
A Columbus for the Modern World
It was not
until the 450th anniversary that a new book would emerge to redefine
the historiography of Christopher Columbus.
Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean
Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (1942) emerged as the single most
impactful book on the history of Christopher Columbus since Washington Irving’s
1828 biography.[21] Morison’s new biography dwelled primarily on
Columbus’ brilliance as a navigator and explorer while downplaying his other shortcomings. This emphasis on Columbus’ understanding of
navigation by the stars and other technologies which aided in his ability to
navigate fit well with the 20th century American technological revolution.[22]
Morison, who
was himself a sailor having served in the United States Navy, traced the
original route Columbus himself sailed to the New World, and in the process
developed an affinity for his ability as a navigator of the oceans. Morison also focused his attention on the
details of Columbus’ surviving records, eliminating any speculation or
conjecture. For Morison, Columbus’ true
history was objective and free of conjecture.
As Morison himself stated, “Speculations are for the poet and the
novelist, not the historian.”[23]
Morison’s
understanding and interpretation of Columbus’ history became the standard by
which all other Columbus biographies were judged. Morison’s history was neither overly critical
nor complimentary of the great explorer but rather presented a somewhat dry chronology
of a man who crossed great oceans to discover a New World. There is little opinion or thesis to
Morison’s work, but instead the reader finds obvious hints of a writer deeply
determined to avoid even the slightest appearance of personal opinion.
The arrival
of Columbus’ quincentenary marked yet another shift in historical perspective
as it applied to the great explorer. Morison’s
biography had remained the dominant narrative for almost five decades, but the
dawn of postmodernism meant a new interpretation of history was being pursued by
yet another generation of historians. Instead
of looking objectively at the history of Columbus, these new writers converted
his legacy into a litmus test meant to satisfy several competing agendas. Or as another writer put it, “the conflicts
over which academics are arguing including debates over which texts to be
taught, the competing claims of western and non-western cultures and social
conflicts over race, ethnicity and privilege…prove that students will need to
learn to deal with them in a culturally diverse world.”[24]
With these new
perspectives on race, culture, etc. now becoming a part of history, the
pendulum of scholarly inquiry had shifted from making Christopher Columbus into
a great hero, to placing all blame upon his shoulders for everything from petty
theft to genocide. One of the more influential
books that helped to shape popular understanding of Columbus along these lines
was Howard Zinn’s controversial A People’s History of the United States (1990). In his book, Zinn doesn’t hide his distain
for the admiral of the sea, calling Columbus’ story “a history of conquest,
slavery and death.”[25] Zinn makes absolutely no attempt at a nuanced
history of Columbus. In his mind,
Columbus is to blame for nearly the entirety of the slavery, rape, murder,
theft and cruelty that permeated throughout the era of Spanish
colonization.
Zinn wasn’t
alone in his assessment of Columbus. In
his 1992 book, American Holocaust, author David Stannard spared no
punches in his berating attack of the explorer.
Throughout the work, Columbus is
portrayed as a bumbling failed explorer whose religious radicalism had inspired
the man to cross the Atlantic (an achievement that was lucky at best), only to
find gold and glory.[26] Like in Zinn’s work, Columbus is blamed for
the bulk of atrocities committed in the New World. Columbus’ abilities as a navigator and
governor are rarely discussed but instead the author focuses almost exclusively
on the many brutalities experienced by native communities. Columbus is, of course, the man deemed most
responsible for such heinous actions.
This
shift in the historiographical approach to Christopher Columbus, though
incomplete, did yield insightful studies into how New World colonization
impacted native cultures, and assisted historians in understanding how specific
minority groups played important roles in the past worthy of further
study. One of the general lessons to
emerge from this era of Columbus studies was to acknowledge the following:
No study of the Colombian voyages can proceed without consideration of the peoples and cultures of America before and during European contact. A healthy recognition of the extent of the Americas’ development, the diversity of the cultures, the multiplicity of languages and interests of the people who confronted the European newcomers after 1492, provides a complete approach to understanding of the significance of the Colombian voyage.[27]
Notwithstanding
the fact that late 20th century histories of Christopher Columbus
had done a far better job of illustrating the profound impact New World
colonization had on native cultures and peoples, the gap left in their accounts
is glaring. Like historians of the 19th
century, these accounts told only half of the story. The failure to remain objective in the
treatment of Columbus, as a historical figure who was a product of his time and
place, was replaced with a desire to transport Columbus to the present where he
could be judged by more modern practices and standards. This failure has to many of today’s
misunderstandings regarding both New World colonization in general, and
Christopher Columbus’ role in that process specifically. Historian John Herbert’s advise provides the
appropriate warning. He writes, “The
study of this time period is very important since out of it came the shape of
the entities that we refer to today as the Americas. A caution to all who enter this important
study. Try to remember to consider the study
of this period from the understanding of that time in history and not as we
would wish it to be today.”[28] This is good advise for any study of history,
regardless of the time in which it is produced.
[2] Carla
Phillips and William Phillips, “Christopher Columbus in United States
Historiography: Biography as Projection.” The History Teacher, 25, no.2 (1992),
Pp. 122.
[3] Washington Erving, A History of the Life and Voyages of
Christopher Columbus, vol. I. (Paris: A & W Galignani,1828).
Pp. 63-64.
[5] Jack
Shreve, “Christopher Columbus: A Bibliographic Voyage” Choice, vol. 29, January
1991, Pp. 703-711
[6] William
Eleroy Curtis, Christopher Columbus: His Portraits and His Monuments, Part
II. (Chicago, Illinois: The W.H. Lowdermilk Company, 1893). Pp. 4
[7]
Ibid, 56-57.
[8] Paul
Leicester Ford, Writings
of Christopher Columbus: Descriptive of the Discovery and Occupation of the New
World. (New York: Charles L.
Webster & Co., 1892). Pp. 17.
[11]
John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Christopher Columbus (New York: The
University Society Incorporated, 1904). Pp. 71.
[12] Ibid,
345.
[13] Mildred
Stapley, Christopher Columbus (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915).
Pp.v.
[14] Charles
Kendall Adams, Christopher Columbus: His Life and His Work, (New York:
Dodd, Mead and Company, 1892). Pp.
viii.
[15]
Abbott, Christopher Columbus, 1.
[16] Phillips,
“Christopher in Historiography, 126.
[17]Justin
Winsor, Christopher Columbus and How lie Received and Imparted the Spirit of
Discovery (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin
and Company, 1892). Pp.497.
[18] Phillips,
“Christopher in Historiography, 126.
[20]
Ibid, 127.
[22] Phillips,
“Christopher in Historiography, 128.
[23]
Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher
Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1942). Pp. 20.
[26] David
Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992). Pp.
63-64.
[27] John
Hebert, “Exploring the Colombian Quincentenary through Historiography.” OAH Magazine of History 5, no.4 (1991). Pp. 13.
[28]
Ibid, 13
